get_version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state this or mention any authentication/rate limit considerations. It is sufficient but could be more explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place; the parenthetical example adds clarity without bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple version-getter with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the scope ('this server supports'), and even gives an example value. No additional context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description adds no parameter info (there is none to add), and no further detail is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('LiquidSoap version this server supports'), and the parenthetical '(2.4.0)' provides a concrete example. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_changelog or get_documentation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description directly states the purpose, making the appropriate usage obvious. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, unlike a stronger usage guideline that would mention exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.